Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Bradskii]

What one wants and what is are often two entirely different things as is the case with laws and morals. One cannot wish away or escape the fact that there are moral and immoral laws

What we are doing is deciding what we might want as a means to produce a viable government. As opposed to what is currently available. The policies of whoever we end up with, plus the laws they may want to pass, are obviously a determining factor in whether we want them to take charge. But it's sufficient to point out that in general people would not vote for policies with which they would disagree and vote for policies that they would support. But then they may accept one bad policy for a half dozen good ones. So perhaps a coalition is the better option so we have a reasonable balance.

What we don't need to do is turn this into a discussion about what we individually think of specific policies. This isn't a Dems v GOP or Liberal v Labor or Conservative v Labour debate.

 

[Bradskii]

No. For the third time, what is proposed is that those who take more from than they give to the commonwealth lose only their right to vote. They would not lose their right to participate in social welfare programs.

But in a lot of cases accepting social welfare would mean that you move from being a net contributor to what you might describe as being a drain on the collective wealth. So you can reject welfare and take a hit to your ability to food and clothe your family but keep your right to vote. Or take welfare and lose it.

It's an interesting thought experiment (and I'm being very generous in saying that) but that's not the type of society in which I want to live.

 

[o_mlly]

What is at issue in the US is not so much improvements in our system of democratic governance but more likely it's survival.

Americans’ national debt is now $31 trillion. That about 125 percent of current GDP. The liabilities are unsustainable. We run annual deficits of $1.6 trillion. These financial obligations will eventually ensure that rising interest rates to service the debt crowd out essential spending for national defense and the general welfare.

In 2010 Obama appointed a bipartisan “National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.” More commonly remembered as the Simpson-Bowles commission; it included both private citizens and elected officials.

The commission recommended radical tax simplifications and some cuts—along with reductions in tax deductions and credits, an increase in the gas tax, restraints on entitlement spending, and various spending caps. Obama and Congress ultimately rejected the recommendations and the commission’s blueprint died.

Why? Welfare programs are described as the "third rail" of American politics. Any politician who touches these entitlements suffers political death. Business as usual will not address the reality of these unsustainable liabilities. So, we can either begin with as little pain as possible to remove the patient gradually from the edge of this cliff or just continue to wait and push him over the edge.

Disconnecting our politicians from the threat of electrocution seems a good idea.

 

[Bradskii]

? The relationship between the concepts of justice and morality are so intertwined as to be inseparable. Societies with unjust laws are inevitably judged as immoral. People whose acts treat others unfairly are judged to have committed immoral acts.

I would have thought that you would have realised that when I talk about morality in this context I am talking about how we individualy live our lives. Unless our individual proclivities are harmful to society in some way then I don't want the government to interfere with our choices. That is a different matter to the concept of justice.

 

[stevevw]

Only in part. Once a certain threshold is passed the state becomes a theocracy. Some would argue for just such a regime but it would have ceased to be a democracy.

So the question would be at what point does it become a theocracy and when other beliefs are allowed at what point do these become dominant that they deny others.

If secular society just happens to align with the Christian idea on these issues that should not be seen as a theocracy but rather just a natural state of society or being human. That it is turned into something that is political and therefore should be socially engineered out of society for the sake of not allowing such a position to ensure equality is the problem.

Secular law must apply to all and many people are not Christians. They deserve their laws too.

To my mind this just undermines any position that dominates even if it is ultimately the best way to be. The idea that a society can be completely neutral and allow a variety of beliefs on these issues at the same time is unreal. The State cannot be neutral. Once the State makes a law on these issues it takes a non- neutral position one way or the other. It then creates type of 'ocracy'.

So for example in the case of abortion where the Christian belief made it illegal in secular society it is now legal. There is no way to make abortion legal and illegal at the same time. So the State has created a dominant belief and position on this over say the Christian position and therefore are doing to Christians what people claim Christians were doing to others in a Theocracy.

Even among Christians there is disagreement. Many Christians for example disapprove of divorce. Many are tolerant of same sex marriage. Some approve of abortion in certain circumstances.

First disagreements among Christians on these matters doesn't mean the moral truth is disagreed. All Christians disapprove of divorce. Even a non Christian should disapprove of divorce. Its the ending of a once good thing. It harms everyone. Its not good. But some Christians accept the reality that people get divorced, that its going to happen. No law will stop that. I think even the Bible recognises this reality.

Same sex marriage is another thing though. Up until recently it was not recognised. So its not Christian tradition. Approving of abortion is certain circumstances is not approving of abortion perse. Its usually when the life of the mother is at risk and thats it. That is done because if abortion is about human life being sacred then the mothers life is also important and its come down to a choice between lives.

They never did, unreservedly. And that is a good thing on the whole, don't you think?

It depends. Its good in that we should scrutinize their performance. But thats healthy skepticism. But what is happening is not healthy. Its distrust because they have failed continually and that is a blight on the system.

We could suggest ways of making improvements to our representation. This is just repeating the problem. I would say that our representatives do not always do the best job. There comes a point in a democracy when they are called to account.

That is sort of the point.

But its gone beyond that point. We have for a long time called for accountability and its still not happening. In fact its getting worse. Either something is wrong with the system, its grown to be unworkable or its allowing for situations that open the door for corruption and taking advantage. Either way that still reflects back on the system.

Maybe its outgrown its usefulness. Can anysystem that has to accommodate for an every growing diversity really govern for all without denying some and can it stop some of those diverse ideas from becoming dominant over the majority. I think this is why we are seeing a rise in socialism and Cultural Marxism.

 

[o_mlly]

It's an interesting thought experiment (and I'm being very generous in saying that) but that's not the type of society in which I want to live.

It appears that you also believe that your tax-paying buddies are not so very generous.

 

[Bradskii]

Disconnecting our politicians from the threat of electrocution seems a good idea.

Your suggestion as to how that should be done - by removing the right to vote from those in what would obviously be the section of society that most needs help is noted.

 

[o_mlly]

Unless our individual proclivities are harmful to society in some way then I don't want the government to interfere with our choices. That is a different matter to the concept of justice.

? So you’re writing that government laws restricting one’s freedom to act in ways not harmful to society are unjust but that’s not about the concept of justice?

 

[o_mlly]

Your suggestion as to how that should be done - by removing the right to vote from those in what would obviously be the section of society that most needs help is noted.

Not so obvious. Firstly, those who are net takers from the commonwealth are not just "the section of society that most needs help". Secondly, the proposal does not remove the help. Only the politicians can do so. The politician's first job is to keep his job. So, as it stands now, the politicians will not address our financial crisis.

Do you have an alternate proposal?

 

[Bradskii]

It appears that you also believe that your tax-paying buddies are not so very generous.

None of us are unfortunately. There are concentric circles of concern that ensure that we look after our own first and foremost. The concern dwindles as the circles grow bigger. Look around where you are sitting right now. See all that stuff you really don't need? Yeah, I've got lots of it as well. Shall we sell it all and give the money to the poor?

If society has some basic faults then we need someone who has the best interests of society at heart and the wherewithall to make the structural changes needed to right the wrongs. Me and you selling our knick knacks and playthings aren't the way to do it. The best way would be to make sure that everyone paid something into a kitty (we could call it...a tax) and nominate some people to use that money to help those that need it most (we could call those people...the government).

 

[Bradskii]

? So you’re writing that government laws restricting one’s freedom to act in ways not harmful to society are unjust...

No. They would be moral laws. Which I reject. Justice is concerned with with ensuring that all are treated impartially and that laws are written to ensure that no harm is done. As this handy definition of justice says: justice

'Justice is the ethical, philosophical idea that people are to be treated impartially, fairly, properly, and reasonably by the law and by arbiters of the law, that laws are to ensure that no harm befalls another, and that, where harm is alleged, a remedial action is taken'.

Justice isn't relevant if no harm is done. There's nothing to remedy.

 

[Bradskii]

Not so obvious. Firstly, those who are net takers from the commonwealth are not just "the section of society that most needs help". Secondly, the proposal does not remove the help. Only the politicians can do so. The politician's first job is to keep his job. So, as it stands now, the politicians will not address our financial crisis.

Do you have an alternate proposal?

To the problems of welfare and social security? It would be an interesting thread. I'm sure there'd be lots of varied opinions and solutions. You should start one.

 

[Bradskii]

So the question would be at what point does it become a theocracy...

When the policies proposed have no secular reason behind them. Only religious ones.

 

[o_mlly]

None of us are unfortunately. There are concentric circles of concern that ensure that we look after our own first and foremost. The concern dwindles as the circles grow bigger. Look around where you are sitting right now. See all that stuff you really don't need? Yeah, I've got lots of it as well. Shall we sell it all and give the money to the poor?

If society has some basic faults then we need someone who has the best interests of society at heart and the wherewithall to make the structural changes needed to right the wrongs. Me and you selling our knick knacks and playthings aren't the way to do it. The best way would be to make sure that everyone paid something into a kitty (we could call it...a tax) and nominate some people to use that money to help those that need it most (we could call those people...the government).

I disagree. Some of us are generous to those beyond our own families. However, government often is overly generous with other people's money resulting in waste and fraud.

Who ought to be responsible for giving care to one who legitimately falls on hard times? Why should the entire community be the immediate default care giver? Unfortunately, validating claims on the community by one from a distance is inevitably difficult. Fraud and waste enters that system.

The closer the care-giver is to the one claiming to need care, the more certain the validation of need is correct. (Proximity does make a difference, as you noted.) So, firstly, the individual bears the responsibility to care for himself. Secondly, the individual’s family, thirdly the individual’s church (or drinking buddies) and then the smallest political community in which the individual resides, iff the first, second and third levels of support cannot (not "will not") provide care then the larger political communities ought be engaged.

 

[Whyayeman]

what is proposed is that those who take more from than they give to the commonwealth lose only their right to vote.

I understand that. Nobody has said why that would be a good thing. It would not be a democracy as we have come to see it. We have universal adult suffrage and this idea turns away from it. In any case everybody pays taxes. We pay taxes on goods through VAT or Purchase Tax. If I fill my car with fuel I thus qualify to vote. The more one looks at the notion the more absurd it becomes.

Essentially having a tax qualification to vote is similar to simply having to pay to vote - which is a horrible idea but much simpler to operate than through reference to the tax offices.

So the question would be at what point does it become a theocracy and when other beliefs are allowed at what point do these become dominant that they deny others.

I am not interested in defining theocracy.

Maybe its outgrown its usefulness. Can any system that has to accommodate for an every growing diversity really govern for all without denying some ...

There is something in this. I am committed to democracy and want to see the system improved. Increasing diversity is one of the challenges to address. There is more to democracy than usefulness, however. Democracy is fair and offers expression to all groups.

... and can it stop some of those diverse ideas from becoming dominant over the majority. I think this is why we are seeing a rise in socialism and Cultural Marxism.

The way to defeat ideas we don't like is through democratic means. It is clear that democratic processes have led to same-sex marriage and abortion rights in America (the examples offered above). They are opposed by a vociferous minority, not a majority.

 

[Bradskii]

I disagree. Some of us are generous to those beyond our own families. However, government often is overly generous with other people's money resulting in waste and fraud.

Who ought to be responsible for giving care to one who legitimately falls on hard times? Why should the entire community be the immediate default care giver? Unfortunately, validating claims on the community by one from a distance is inevitably difficult. Fraud and waste enters that system.

The closer the care-giver is to the one claiming to need care, the more certain the validation of need is correct. (Proximity does make a difference, as you noted.) So, firstly, the individual bears the responsibility to care for himself. Secondly, the individual’s family, thirdly the individual’s church (or drinking buddies) and then the smallest political community in which the individual resides, iff the first, second and third levels of support cannot (not "will not") provide care then the larger political communities ought be engaged.

Let me know when you start the thread. I'll definitely join in.

 

[Whyayeman]

Who ought to be responsible for giving care to one who legitimately falls on hard times? Why should the entire community be the immediate default care giver?

That is an age-old question. A perspicacious reader of the Bible will detect the question of the parable of the Good Samaritan. Every society in history has accepted responsibility for the weak, the young and the old. That is what defines human societies. It can even be seen in other primates.

I think you really know the answer to your own question. In case it has slipped your mind the answer is: us.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It is the poster who wants to restrict voting rights to disallow non-contributors who has proposed this. It is system that has never existed anywhere, and a figment of that poster's imagination.

I am aware who the of the enemies of democracy are. My sentence was a bit awkward, but I was trying to acknowledge that the context of all of the referenced programs (social security, medicare) and the counters (24th amendment) were all specifically American and you are not.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So you claim but have not yet substantiated with a legal argument.

Sure I did. It's a backdoor poll tax (net positive payment to the government is required to vote) and violates the 24th amendment.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So the question would be at what point does it become a theocracy and when other beliefs are allowed at what point do these become dominant that they deny others.

When government officials lead religious activities as part of their official actions.